EXCLUSIVE: Hands-on with upcoming Fujifilm XF and GF lenses

Hands-on with upcoming Fujifilm XF and GF lenses

We're in Dubai, where Fujifilm is showing off pre-production and prototype samples of three upcoming lenses - the GF 50mm F3.5 - a compact, lightweight standard lens for medium format - the XF 16mm F2.8, and the XF 16-80mm F4 - both of which designed for the company's range of APS-C format X-series cameras.

Click through for an exclusive first look at all three, including detailed specifications.

I am happy that DPR now regularly states not only the equivalent focal length for a native cropped sensor lens but also the equivalent aperture. For example, an APS-C 35mm f/2 lens has an equivalent focal length of 50mm (35X1.5) and an equivalent aperture of f/3 (2X1.5). The greater the crop-factor, the greater the depth of field. If you want shallower depth of field, get a full-frame camera/lens or choose an as large aperture lens as possible.

They’ve been doing this for years to keep gearheads happy. The fact is, in the realm of optics, aperture signifies the brightness of a lens: f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of focal length. Depth-of-field is affected by several factors, with the only single measurement equating to depth-of-field being “magnification at the image plane”. For decades photographers moved between 35mm, medium format, and large format, without this “equivalence” nonsense.

Dear Fuji, please release multiple versions of your primes. I care far more about OIS than I do weather sealing. I shoot video as much as I do stills, and until there are fast, stabilized primes, I don’t plan on considering any of your cameras.

We will have to see how sharp the lens is wide open at close distances. The 23 mm F2 has gotten a bit of a bad rep for that. I’m on the fence between the 16 mm 1.4, which is on sale right now, or this new baby 16 mm.

16-80 is exactly what I need, for video. I shoot multicam with 18-55 and 50-140. I need extra reach for the standard zoom (overlapping with 50-140, I know) to handle certain multicam-specific situations.

Sony, please, we need lens ... Sony APSC users need lens !!! A good standard zoom, pleeease ... Sony 18-105 f4 is huge, electric and a 28mm equivalent in dude angle is not ideal, the quality control is not very good and there is also the softness of the corner ... 16- 70 f4 is harmful, a decent copy of every 10 can come out, totally decentered and also expensive. The slogans of Sony should think that this need is covered in their system, but for the users it is not like that. We need a decent standard Zoom like the one Fujifilm just announced!

It looks like the 16-80 features a marked aperture ring, nice :-) It's one silly omission of the 10-24 IMO, glad they fixed it with this new lens. I'm very much looking forward to trying this new standard zoom. Great focal range, somewhat compact and constant aperture.

16-80mm will surely be more expensive, so it won´t be suited as a kit lens (unlike the 18-55mm). I guess because of much larger focal range (plus weather-sealing) it will also be noticeably heavier, my guess is somewhere between 400 and 500g (whereas the 18-55mm is 310g).Anyhow I agree that the future 16-80mm will be a much more useful lens and I will buy it as soon as it hits the market.

The 18-55 is the oldest zoom in the line and has reduced AF performance on the later bodies. Both it and the 55-200 are in need of an update due to AF performance limitations (the 60/2.4 also really needs an update) and the 16-80 would make an excellent replacement for the 18-55 in the lineup as the premium kit/prosumer zoom, fitting between the 15-45 and the 16-55 in the line.

fuji can see xt30 and 16-80 lens to folks who go on vacation and want to gettravel photos. both canon and Nikon make such a lens for their full format cameras. now Fuji realizes there is a market out there for the traveler and for the guy or gal who has a family. I prefer to take this lens with me on my travel. I do not need anything else.

I shot Nikon DX for five years with a 16-85mm 3.5-5.6.VR lens. I enjoyed the very wide + the mid-near tele combination, although it is much larger than the nikon 18-55 kit. I would imagine a similar relative size increase for the Fuji model.

BTW, I finally got an adapter ring for Nikon Lenses on a Fuji X-3E3. So, I got to try the 16-85mm on it. Is it a very versatile range to have. Would be even sweeter if it were faster than my lens, like the new Nikon 16-80mm 2.8-4mm.

For thru hiking, the Fuji 16-80 f4 will make a fantastic combo with the Rokinon 12 f2. I can't wait to get my hands on it. I just hope that the optical quality is good and that the weight is below 500gr.

I can't wait for the 16-80/4. I think a 5x zoom with a moderate aperture starting at 24mm FF equivalent is the sweet spot for hiking. Not too heavy, not too many compromises in terms of optical quality and (just) enough telephoto capabilities.So far I do hikes with the 16/1.4, 27/2.8 and 60/2.4 (or 55-200/3.5-4.8 depending on what subjects I expect) as they just didn't have the right zoom lens in their portfolio for me.

I really hope that Fuji put their focus on optical quality rather than a low price tag. But looking at most Fuji lenses I guess good optical performance can be expected.

Depending on the performance of the 16-80/4 at 27mm and 80mm I might even sell the 27/2.8 and 55-200/3.5-4.8. I don't like to have too many lenses lying around that I rarely use. The 16/1.4 is still great for night/astro photography and the 60/2.4 for macros.

I can´t wait for the 16-80mm as well. In my DSLR times my favourite and most used lens was a 16-85mm f3,5-5,6 lens (Pentax). It was the best lens for travelling and shooting out in nature (it was not possible to switch lenses most of the time); the focal range was very useful, 16mm was wide enough for landscapes and 85mm was acceptably long (a notable difference comared to usual 50 or 55mm), and most importantly still retained decent optical quality (something that zooms like 18-135 or 18-200 couldnt deliver). Plus it was weather-sealed (typical for Pentax) which I really appreciated (the lens survived drop to a waterfall). As a typical outdoor lens I didnt mind the slow aperture.So now with Fuji I miss such an universal lens a lot. I use the kit lens 16-50mm for travelling and while it´s good enough for a kit lens, it´s still only a XC all-plastic lens, so a decently build XF lens with WR and much longer end (constant f4 is a bonus) is something I really crave for.

As I said, I had a 16-85mm with f3,5-5,6 and I really didn´t mind that it was f5,3-8,4 equivalent, since oustide I stopped the lens down most of the time. An f4 or f5,6 zom lens is not a portrait lens anyway, you put my f1,2 prime for that purpose.As regards the 18-55mm, in my opinion that lens will be obsolete after the 16-80mm comes. True, it has 2,8 at the wide end, which might be more handy indoors, but as you zoom in it slows down to the same f4 like the 16-80mm; it is both shorter and narrower and not weather-sealed. The only advantage of 18-55mm will be the price (since the 16-80mm will most probably be a lot more expensive).

Canon EF40F2.8STM pancake costs $150-$180. How much will this GF50F3.5LM'WR (40F2.8 equivalent lens) cost? 10x as much? :)Welcome to the "affordable" medium format world ^^ !? Forget about the MF look, just spend the money ...

I owned the Canon 40f2.8STM on my 6D and the result was really nice even wide open. After a few month I changed it for the 35f2IS , most for the FOV that I prefered. When I was comparing the images made with both lenses the 40mm was not in shamed at all, even the 35mm was effectively better.

The Canon 40mm pancake is a very good lens. Maybe not as sharp as the EF35F2IS, but it is definitely sharp enough. And it doesn't produce such "stretchy" nervous corner bokeh like the 35mm does. Plus, it is much smaller and much cheaper. And you can actually adapt it to GFX cameras.

If I knew now what I knew when I started with my a6000 5 years ago, I probably would have gone for the at-the-time-new X-T1. Yes, more money (and it was still some time until the f/2 family came out!) but I would have spent less over all than what I have now. It's all about the lenses.

To make them sharp, well-corrected and functional, maybe? Look at the Sony 16mm f/2.8 - tiny, and also a POS; the Canon 22mm f/2 - vignettes like crazy, has field curvature; the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, optically good but slooow AF; the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 - good, but a stop slower; the Sony 35mm f/2.8 - good, but a stop slower; and so on.

So do Sony bodies with vignetting correction... and I shoot one of those :PCanon bodies might not do that, but one needs to settle for 3-year-old tech.Nikon bodies might not do that, but one needs to pay the premium and get stuck with temperamental tech.MFT bodies might not do that, but one needs to live with the small and old sensors.Pick your poison 😬

I would rather a compact lens not have to compromise on its compact size. Its strange because Fuji already has bigger brighter versions of their "small" 16/23/35/50 lenses that dont compromise on IQ. If you want better IQ, then just go with one of those.

Also Im not sure that the actual reason they are longer is because they are better optically, the 23/2 for example ironically takes soft photos when shooting anything close.

Fuji tried the pancake idea with the 27/2.8, while a great lens, it really hasn't been too popular.

The f2's however have been much more successful, and are a good combination of size and speed.

And keeping the aperture ring allows the Fuji bodies to be both small and reasonably glove-friendly (gloves and aperture rings/shutter speed dials work well, mirrorless-sized buttons not so much with gloves).

They are corrected better and sharper. To make the pancake, they did it with the 27 2.8, but it's nice wide open... to do the 23 f2 smaller, they had to insert it into the body of the x 100. The 27 2.8 is my most used lens even though my others out perform it. Very handy, go everywhere lens.

2 rings (aperture + focus) takes more space than 1 ring (focus). Especially if the ring is large enough to be usable. A good chunk of the Fujicron's size is about having really usable focus & aperture rings.

Additionally, making a well corrected f2 lens simply takes more elements & groups than an f2.8. The 27/2.8 is a 7/5 design, the 23/2 is 10/6.

Note the 23/2 is almost exactly double the length of the 27/2.8, with double the control rings.

I guess Fuji lens engineers should learn a trick or two from Canon and Samsung. They had it right with the old Fuji 18/2, but either they gave up or just didnt want to damage x100 sales so they intentionally made it longer.

They should have gone FF instead. Unfortunately, they keep trying to make a point by "breaking the laws of physics" and proving that APS-C system is just as good, while "smaller", which is false and simply not possible. So, they fail every time (obviously and predictably) and all we get is not as good as FF (or Bayer for that matter), same size, plus unreasonably expensive optics. I'm sure that it's good enough for many people, but "good enough" doesn't cut it, when there's better for the same price or even cheaper. I think that I would prefer the XF23F2($449) over the F2.8 pancake for the same price (same goes for 16mm), but then I can (and I do) have an F1.8 equivalent FF pancake (the EF40F2.8STM) and it's 3 TIMES cheaper. How does it make any logical sense to anyone? Why not just save your money, get a GFX body and adapt some cheaper FF lenses to it. Sounds like a much better deal to me.

No need to sacrifice performance. Just make it the pancake size of the Canon 22/2. The Fuji 23/3 is longer and already suffers from softness when shooting close. Its currently a lose/lose with no benefits. If you're so set on bigger size, get the 23/1.4. No point of the 23/2 when its thinner but just as long and with poorer IQ and aperture.

But the Fuji doesn't vignette nearly as much, is much better built, focuses faster, has an aperture ring and a properly-damped focus ring, and is just as good, if not better, shooting at longer distances. I don't tend to use a 35mm-equivalent lens for macro, anyway.

I think that as soon as I'm finished with a project in which I'm going to make a good profit, I will be selling all my Sony apsc and FF gear to buy Fuji. These cameras and lenses are what real photo equipment should be.

Education isn’t a criteria, none of the editors have degrees in imaging or optics. But I’ve been on my fair share of lavish press trips in a different field and they’re no fun; you’re cooped up with a bunch of hyper competitive other writers, supercilious, smug PR people, and anxious, anxious manufacturer staff. And they feed you gross, over-thought restaurant food.

The XA's are great little cameras when paired with a wide-ish lens. I've generally loved the XA-1/18 combo as a pocket camera and the 27 and 23/2 both also work well. I expect the 16/2.8 to be a good fit for that sort of P&S with a real lens shooting.

They're best paired with an EVF-equipped body for when you want to do more serious shooting though.

I agree. I'm mostly a landscapes/hiking shooter, too, and I rarely shoot even F/4. I use aperture priority mode and default to F/5.6, where lenses have the best resolution across most of the frame. When I really want subject isolation I switch to an F/1.8 prime.

The new 16-80 f/4 lens is an intriguing option, one I would definitely consider as an all-arounder. It's confusing, though, how much it will overlap with the existing 16-55 f/2.8. Will be fascinating to see how IQ compares.

Just like many other brands in FF have a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-105 f/4. The 16-55 f/2.8 is really a beast for a crop (doesn't even have optical stab!) this alternative could be a good one while traveling.

Just about every other maker has that split as well. Wide-range F4, narrow-range f2.8. As long as the f4's optically good it gives the landscape guys a lighter, wider ranged options while the more speed sensitive folks get their fast aperture zoom.

The current 18-55 and 16-55 overlap much more. I expect the 18-55 to get aged out of the line because of that and its AF performance limitations on the newer bodies.

But only in the same way that a Nikon 50mm F1.4D ($370) and a Zeiss Otus 50mm F1.4 ($3999) are equivalent. I'm not saying the difference here will be as big, but equivalence only tells you the most basic parameters, not the performance.

Richard makes an important statement here.This is why information like “nine elements in six groups, including one aspherical element” is as important as the equivalence footprint. And add to it that given an equally advanced optical formula, the larger format version will still excel. Because it is harder to correct for aberrations with a smaller format (for an equivalent offering). This can be proven in a mathematical way.

The reason for big rear lens is that you want the lens to be telecentric for digital cameras. So - if the lens not is in particular fast, then you can put the optical waist near to the front lens. And, then they will look like this lens. It is kind of optimal in this case.

I am really waiting for this 16-80 F4 Zoom, because back into the X-Pro1/E1 Introduction, there was only the 18-55/2.8-4 "Kitlens" being avialable - and still is..the F2.8 16-55 is a huge behemoth. Of course, the cheaper XC 16-50 and 15-45, which are optically great (for their price!), but the 16-80 should have been avialable - already from the start, back into 2012.

I hope it'll being good, optically. For instance, it should being comparable into IQ with the Nikon Nikkor 24-120 F4 Zoom Lens, which is FX, FF, but also bigger.

The Trend is Mirrorless, and smaller, lighter Setups. Imagine, a D700, D750 with that FX 24-120 F4 is a huge combo, to carry all day.I get heavy hands, when handling my 5D, 24-105 F4L all day...

Foto64: You should consider the whole system. There is certainly a considerable overlap between APSC and FF when you compare equivalent lenses. With ff systems there are faster and bigger, heavier lenses available, with apsc systems lighter, smaller but not so fast lenses. But you are right in so far that there are f4 standard zooms available which are smaller and lighter than the Fuji f2.8 16-55mm. Would be great if Fuji would bring a replacement here. But I wouldn't decide for a system just because of one camera-lens combination.

APSC lenses are not much smaller and lighter that FF . To get any real advantage there you need to go with MFT. Now that there are FF mirrorless cameras out in force APSC has lost any real size advantage.

I shot with a z7 and the 24-70,,,not that great,,alot of chromatic aberration. I wasnt impressed with the z7 considering price, availability of lenses, the constant loosening of wired shutter release, and other annoying issues,,it wasnt all that and a bag of chips..I think the xt3 and this combo will be great..even the 16-55 is better than the nikon 24-70 f4

kolyy: Absolutely yes for the Samyangs. I thought it was Rokinon but maybe they are all the same. I hope that Sony themselves will start to release such very small, not so fast high quality lenses. Not everyone is interested in the lowest f-stops possible. I don't feel that I need those and prefer lenses attached to cameras over camera bodies attached to lenses.

I think the 16-80 f4 makes a lot of sense as a complement to a few of the fast primes (the 16 1.4 and 35 1.4 my personal favorites) for when the light fades or that extra bit of subject isolation is needed... Rumor has it the autofocus is dead silent - another plus for video shooters... The full frame comparisons seem silly - different system, different priorities. That said i’ve seen plenty of astounding professional work produced by x-series cameras. In the right hands...

My APS-C MILC system to date is still a Samsung NX30. The Samsung NX lens range features a 16mm F2.4 lens, but not a 24-120mm FF equivalent lens. I know that sooner or later I will be "obliged" to switch to another brand if I want an APS-C system with the latest technologies. I also own an M4/3 body with the Panasonic 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 (with the same equivalent focal range than the Fuji 16-80mm that covers most of my needs) that I find pretty good wide open for a "kit" lens.It looks like, with this new lens offering, adding weather-resistance and, I hope, better IQ compared to the Samsung 16mm and Panasonic 12-60mmm, Fuji is the best candidate for a future switch :-)

You are the only one who can provide the right answer...Are you frequently in a situation where you need a broader field of view without the possibilty to step-back ?Do you often think that, when you can step back, the perspective has changed in a way that does not satisfy you ?Do you often need a greater depth of field ?Answers to those questions should help you...

Melchiorum,9mm does not speak to anyone, as a 9mm difference between two wide angle lenses have not the same consequence on the FOV than between two tele lenses. The increase in field of view from a 16mm to a 23mm lens is about 28%, but once converted in their FF equivalent (about 24 and 35mm) this is an increase of about 35% ! Not negligeable...Also, IMHO, UWA are "hard" to use. Because far away objects become very small, you must take a very great care to the composition. Unless you want to make a landscape panorama from a single shot or shoot starry sky, UWA are "limited" to subjects with interesting elements in the very foreground, IMHO.

I'd say yes 16 and 23 ( 24 and 35 in real equivalents) are very different focal lengths anything involving travel photography needs a wide lens, having something close in the foreground usually helps the image

theronsan,This is not that simple and your answer is not very helpfull. If you do not use a tool, that does not necessarily mean that you do not need it. This may be because you do not know what the tool can do for you... OK, you said "probably"... But this is precisely because this is probable, that I positively assumed that the OP does not know what a 16mm can do and tried to give some clues... ;-)

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.